Marlowe v. Marlowe, 2023 Ohio 1417

Married 2011; two minor sons. In September 2018 Jennifer moved the children to Florida with her boyfriend (Denis Waibel) without giving Christopher notice; Christopher then filed for divorce and emergency custody.
Wood County JFS conducted an alternative-response investigation in 2018 after Jennifer reported alleged physical incidents; JFS closed the matter with recommendations (counseling/assessment) and no finding of abuse.
Multiple investigations followed (Florida DCF, Perrysburg Police, other agencies); prosecutors declined to charge Christopher and investigators produced mixed or incomplete findings (one DCF file was based on an erroneous report that Christopher was deceased).
Magistrate’s final decision (July 2021) named Jennifer the temporary/residential parent, citing maternal stability during Christopher’s health problems; GAL recommended Christopher as residential parent and urged counseling and liberal parent contact.
Trial court conducted de novo review on objections, analyzed the R.C. 3109.04 best‑interest factors, found Jennifer’s unilateral, unexplained move and pattern of limiting contact problematic, concluded Christopher better satisfied the children’s best interests, ordered the children returned to Ohio, and the court of appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Marlowe)	Defendant's Argument (Marlowe)	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in designating Father (Christopher) residential parent and legal custodian under R.C. 3109.04	Jennifer argued the court misweighed evidence, failed to give proper weight to her role as primary caregiver in Florida, and made findings against the manifest weight of the evidence	Christopher argued both parents stand on equal footing; trial court properly considered R.C. 3109.04 factors (moving, interference with visitation, instability, GAL recommendation) and acted within its discretion	Court affirmed: trial court did not abuse its discretion; factual findings are supported by competent, credible evidence and best‑interest factors favored Father

Askew v. Goldhart, 75 Ohio St.3d 608 (Ohio 1996) (defines abuse‑of‑discretion standard).
Ross v. Ross, 64 Ohio St.2d 203 (Ohio 1980) (findings supported by some competent, credible evidence are not against manifest weight).
Davis v. Flickinger, 77 Ohio St.3d 415 (Ohio 1997) (trial court has superior opportunity to judge witness credibility in custody cases; deference owed).
Bechtol v. Bechtol, 49 Ohio St.3d 21 (Ohio 1990) (primary‑caregiver status is a relevant but not controlling factor in custody determinations).
DeHass v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (Ohio 1967) (credibility determinations and weight of evidence are for the trier of fact).
Miller v. Miller, 37 Ohio St.3d 71 (Ohio 1988) (trial court discretion in custody matters merits utmost respect).